detect_rc_mapping

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the ~50 Hz sampling rate, the bounded observation window, and the fact that the result depends on user-supplied stick/switch movement. It stops short of describing output shape, but that is minor given the no-annotation-burden baseline.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the passive-mode behavior, then classification taxonomy, then the sibling routing, then the user instruction. Dense and information-rich with no filler, though the classification enumeration makes it longer than strictly minimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden — and it does so by listing the classification labels the agent will receive and noting which channels stay ambiguous. A caller has essentially everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% – duration_s is already documented with its max (60 s) and meaning in the schema. The description's 'pendant N secondes' merely echoes this without adding format or edge-case guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (échantillonne/classifie), the resource (all RC channels), and enumerates the exact output classification vocabulary (throttle, stick, switch_2pos, switch_3pos, unused) plus the TAER/AETR convention detection. It differentiates itself from the sibling detect_rc_channel_move by naming the residual ambiguity it cannot resolve.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly frames this as 'mode passif', states the prerequisite user action (ask the user to move all sticks/switches during measurement), and names the alternative tool (detect_rc_channel_move) with the exact condition under which to combine it. Both when-to-use and the workaround path are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.